Revilo P. Oliver on Homosexuality
Originally written for inclusion in Frederick Seelig’s book Destroy the Accuser
, this is Professor Revilo P. Oliver’s learned and insightful analysis of the homosexual question.
The other perversion with which we are confronted by Mr. Seelig’s
tragic story is not so easily understood. Homosexuality is a disgusting
and, in some of its aspects, recondite subject, and even the most
concise summary of what is known about it would reach the dimensions of a
treatise and require the use of languages other than English.
There
are, furthermore, many reasons why even the most conservative Americans
may not recognize it as an evil or may underestimate it.
The American Republic was founded to maximize personal liberty by
shackling government, which, as Washington said, is like fire: it is
necessary for civilized life, but is devastating whenever it is not kept
strictly confined and under control. Our tradition of freedom is still
so strong that many American conservatives — especially those who call
themselves “libertarians” — believe that police powers should not be
used against sexual perverts or persons addicted to the use of opium,
cocaine and other hallucinatory drugs.
This view, of course, is
predicated on the assumption that such vices harm only the individuals
who voluntarily practice them — an assumption that is negated by both
human history and the social realities of the present.
Men of our race naturally view with
contempt the creatures who, though anatomically male, find a perverse
and incomprehensible satisfaction in sexual relations with one another.
And it is only natural to regard what we despise as ineffectual and
therefore harmless, except, perhaps, to weaklings. This instinctive
attitude is confirmed by the reasoned arguments of what is now called
“Social Darwinism,” a term that is inappropriate since it suggests that
the doctrine is of recent origin.
Ever since men have reflected on the
nature of civilized society, it has been obvious that the human race
produces inferior beings that are, culturally and socially, waste
products, so that the health of a high civilization, like that of a
large city, depends on the provision of an adequate sewage system. That
is something for which every rational political theory has had to make
provision, not only in the West, but in other civilizations. [7]
It
can be argued, therefore, that society should not attempt to check such
vices as homosexuality and addiction to narcotics, since the more
freely persons with such tendencies are allowed to indulge them, the
less likely they are to leave offspring. In this way, it is
hoped, society will eventually be improved by elimination of the unfit.
What this theory overlooks, apart from the practical difficulties that
we need not enumerate, is that morality is not simply hereditary.
Although there are born criminals, it is very unlikely that there are
persons who are born with such innate qualities that they cannot be made
criminals during their formative years by education, degrading
associations, and insidious solicitation. Even if we grant that the
faculty is hereditary, we must number moral integrity, like the ability
to see or life itself, among the things that man can easily destroy, but
never create.
Christianity, aside from a few bizarre but strangely recurrent
heresies, has always used Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of what is
justly abominated by both God and man. But it is the tragedy of our time
that Christianity no longer provides the social cohesion that made our
modern world possible. For a considerable part of our population,
including a very influential part of it, the faith of our fathers has
become a primitive myth, explicitly or tacitly rejected by those who
would think in scientific or practical terms.
More important than the
number of agnostics and atheists, however, is the fact that the
Christian churches have been invaded, and many have been captured, by
so-called “modernists,” who in their pulpits cynically exploit what they
privately regard as superstition, and, by peddling the sentimental
hokum called “the social gospel,” pervert and destroy the very
foundations of the Christianity in whose name they profess to speak.
They are the worthy successors of the priests of Cybele that
Apuleius described in the eighth book of his
Metamorphoses,
and it is not remarkable that they, instead of expounding the Christian
doctrine concerning homosexuality, use their pulpits to defend or even
commend a vice of which some, at least, have a more than theoretical
knowledge.
Sexual desire,
although not so strong a force as hunger, greed, or vanity, is
undoubtedly a biological force in every human being, and this fact has
made it throughout history a favorite means of manipulating and
exploiting men and women.
It has been used for that purposes by
witch-doctors and shamans of every age, including our own. When Sigmund
Freud crawled from the sewers of Vienna with the discovery that persons
not so degenerate as he were “sick” and needed to be cured by sexual
magic, he founded an extremely profitable racket.
In an age of waning
religion, the notion that sex is virtually the
whole of human life and the only source of happiness fascinated the
credulous; and, to an extent seldom equaled in the most orgiastic cults
of barbarism, the indulgence of the sexual appetite has become the
religion of our contemporaries.
The cult has, of course, been
propagated enthusiastically by the disciples of John Dewey, who have
made the public schools an instrument for promoting “democracy” by
injecting into the tender minds of children the belief that life is
merely a series of animal satisfactions.
As a result, our nation is now
suffering from an erotic monomania that ominously resembles the sexual
frenzy that swept over France immediately before the insane blood-bath
that is euphemistically called the French Revolution. In this context,
homosexuality seems to be but one aspect of a much larger problem — an
aspect which, since it is particularly repulsive, it is easy to ignore.
Finally, many Americans still regard homosexuality as a moral and
social problem that has little relation to politics and to our most
immediate and terrible danger, the Bolshevik takeover which, despite all
the protests and activity of belatedly awakened Americans in recent
years, seems to be progressing with the methodical velocity of an
irresistible Juggernaut.
In fact, very few saw a connection between the
two evils before the publication of R.G. Waldeck’s concise and excellent
article, ”Homosexual International,” in
Human Events,
September 29, 1960. It was only then that people began to notice that,
in the Western world, the lairs of treason are invariably also the
nesting-grounds of degenerates.
Perverts are disgusting, but you cannot afford to ignore them. Mr.
Seelig’s story will give you some indication of the power that those
furtive and foul creatures have attained over you — and there are a
thousand pieces of evidence to confirm that estimate.
The cause of the dark perversion of human instincts is obscure.
Homosexuality is found among many tribes of savages, but that fact has
little relevance here. Civilization is by definition the process whereby
human beings repress and prevent the conduct and behavior that is
characteristic of savages.
Near East
The most common explanation of homosexuality in societies that can be
called civilized is that advanced by the great traveler and
ethnological observer, Sir Richard Burton, in the commentary appended to
his famous translation of the
Thousand and One Nights. For Sir
Richard, the prime cause is geographic and racial. He speaks of the
Sotadic Zone, that is to say, the Near East, which is dominated by the
Semitic and Hamitic peoples among whom the vice is inveterate and taken
for granted, together with the adjacent areas of the Mediterranean basin
that those peoples occupy or have penetrated and influenced. It is true
that among those inhabitants of the Sotadic Zone, homosexuality is
regarded as normal, and Sir Richard believed that that was the
consequence of certain anatomical peculiarities that are generally found
in males and females of those races. Other observers, especially those
who, during the French occupation, observed behavior in the Jewish and
Moslem quarters of cities in North Africa, believe that anatomical
differences are much less important than the prevalent custom of
subjecting infants to sexual abuse by adults and of sanctioning among
children in their earliest years an animal-like and perverse sexuality
of which most Americans would believe children of three to ten years
physiologically incapable. For some of the highly unpleasant details,
see
The Cradle of Erotica by Allen Edwardes and R.E.L. Masters (New York, Julian Press, 1963).
Whatever the reason, homosexuality is normal in the Sotadic Zone. [8]
That merely means that we shall have to restrict our inquiry to Western
man, who seems naturally to regard the perversion with instinctive
abhorrence.
Germanic tribes
That does not mean that the problem can be reduced to simple racial
terms. For one thing, we know virtually nothing about our ancestors in
the stages of savagery and barbarism through which we assume that they
must have passed. The nearest we can come to them, perhaps, is by
considering the Germanic tribes who lived on the borders of the Roman
Empire, which they later overran and sacked, and then occupied.
Homosexuality was not unknown among those tribes, but they disapproved
of it, and they signified their disapproval by simply hanging perverts
to the nearest tree or, preferably, sinking them in mud under a weight
of stones, if a swamp was conveniently available. In recent years,
archaeologists have recovered quite a number of such bodies from peat
bogs in which they were preserved. Those tribes were, of course, pagans,
and I insist on that detail because the persons who distort history to
poison our culture will assure you that disapproval of homosexuality is
something peculiar to Christianity.
Among the Greeks
Among the Greeks, the extraordinarily gifted people who were the real
creators of our civilization, homosexuality appears to have been an
alien corruption. It was unknown in the Homeric epics, although in later
times perverts, who are incapable of understanding masculine friendship
and always seek any pretext to justify themselves, tried to read
homosexual implications into the comradeship of Achilles and Patroclus.
The aetiological myths all suggest a foreign origin: one states that the
vice was invented by Laius in Thebes (where there was a pre-Greek
Semitic element), and another claims that it originated in Crete (where
the Mycenean Greeks ruled a native population of undetermined ethnic
origin) — and we know that centuries later, as Aristotle (
Pol.,
II, 10, 9 = 1271a) remarked with astonishment, on that island
homosexuality was permitted by law, perhaps as a means of avoiding
overpopulation.
At Athens, homosexuality appears to have been rare before the
demoralizing Peloponnesian War, and certainly did not receive any kind
of general sanction until long thereafter. It was forbidden by one of
Solon’s laws, which was still enforced as late as 346 B.C., when one of
the most prominent Athenian politicians, Timarchus, was prosecuted under
that law and was probably convicted, although one account says that he
committed suicide before the jury brought in its verdict. Plato has
himself been suspected, not without reason, of homosexuality, but it is
noteworthy that when he elaborated a model constitution for a
city-state, he absolutely forbade (
Leg., VIII, 8 = 841d) sexual relations between males.
At Sparta, where, we are told, paederasty flourished early, it was
forbidden, under the same penalty as incest, by a law attributed to
Lycurgus that was still in force in the time of Xenophon (
De rep. Lac.,
2, 13). It would be tedious to make the rounds of the other Greek
states, or to try to determine at what time and under what influences
the old legislation and the attitudes that seem to have been natively
Greek were made obsolete by toleration and corruption. We may all
suspect that first the tolerance and finally the vogue of homosexuality
had much to do with the decline of the Greek world, but we cannot prove
that, for we cannot show what Greek history, turbulent with internecine,
and, in the end, suicidal wars, would have been without that factor.
[9]
The Romans
The Romans, to whom we owe more than to the Greeks, felt Western man’s natural abhorrence of homosexuality.
Although
degenerates were doubtless born from time to time, the contempt
universally felt for perverts probably sufficed to restrain their
tendencies, and when it did not, the stern ethos of the nation made
short work of them. As late as 125 B.C., when the old paternal
authority had been greatly restricted, a Roman of the old school, Q.
Fabius Maximus Servilianus, who had held the highest offices in the
Roman Republic, peremptorily put his own son to death for homosexuality.
Such was the unflinching moral code that made the Romans great. It was
only after Rome had become a dominant power in the world by decisively
defeating the Carthaginians (202 B.C.), the Macedonians (197), and the
Seleucid Empire (188), and had suffered a great influx of aliens,
including Orientals, that we see the beginning of moral decay.
In 186 B.C., the
Bacchanalian rites
In 186 B.C., just two years after the Roman legions had shattered the
power of the richest and most populous empire of the Hellenistic Age,
the Roman Senate, by a still extant decree, tried to suppress the
Bacchanalian rites of a cult that, originating in Asia Minor, had
reached Rome by way of Etruria, and used the traditional “freedom of
worship” as a cover for nocturnal orgies of promiscuity and perversion.
Investigation disclosed that the alien “religion” was really a secret
conspiracy that worked systematically to seduce and corrupt adolescent
boys and girls, and practiced, in addition to sexual profligacy, such
associated arts as the forging of wills and murder by poison. And,
significantly, a majority of the physiologically male members of the
Bacchanalian conspiracy were homosexuals, although the cult made
available to them a copious supply of young and libidinous women ready
and eager for anything. (For a full account, see Livy, XXXIX, 8-19). All
that sounds quite modern, doesn’t it?
In 186 B.C., therefore, we have the first clear instance in recorded
history of a clandestine conspiracy engaged in a revolt against
civilization by using sex to entice adolescents into a life of depravity
and crime — evidently for the sheer pleasure of dragging human beings
down to the moral nihilism in which the conspirators find a strange
satisfaction. And homosexuality was a major part of a phenomenon that
was to be repeated over and over again in the subsequent history of
Western civilization.
In 186 B.C., intelligent Romans had to face a truth that few
Americans are willing to face today: perverts are formidable, not
because they practice a disgusting vice among themselves, but because
they are driven by a demonic urge to corrupt and defile all mankind, to
propagate not only perversion but every form of crime. From 186 B.C. to
1966 A.D. the evidence constantly indicates that for many degenerates
the physical pleasure that they derive from their perversion is quite
secondary to the pleasure they derive from ensnaring and degrading
children and adolescents who would otherwise become decent men and
women.
At Rome, the repression of the Bacchanalians checked the infection
for a time, but not permanently.
In 149 B.C. or thereabouts the Romans
enacted the Lex Scantina de stupro cum masculo, which provided a
heavy penalty for perversion. As everyone knows, such laws cannot
prevent; they can only discourage, and their most important force is
expression of the standards of the society that enacts them. Rome,
however, was suffering from creeping moral paralysis that the Senate and
conservative magistrates to the very end of the Republic sought to
combat by such measures as the expulsion of subversive aliens (which was
only temporary, since they, aided by wealth and influence, began to
filter back almost at once) and measures to limit the spread of Oriental
cults.
The Lex Scantina remained on the books; there were prosecutions under
it as late as the Second Century after Christ and perhaps later. But
the feeling that had inspired it was gradually eroded, and although
homosexuality was never officially legalized, as has now been done in
the State of Illinois and will probably be done in our entire nation as
soon as Earl Warren gets around to it, the law became virtually a dead
letter. Before the end of the Republic, Roman writers who wanted to be
thought “intellectual” and “sophisticated,” imitating the literary
fashions of Alexandria, which was the New York of the ancient world, did
not hesitate to confess — perhaps falsely in some cases — that they
were paederasts. And, paralleling what happens in the United States
today, one of Cicero’s correspondents thought it a delightful joke when a
homosexual pervert was prosecuted under the Lex Scantina before a
presiding judge who was himself a pervert. Such a society is fit only
for despotism, and despotism was, of course what the Romans got — a
despotism under which the old Roman families quickly died out and were
replaced by the descendants of their slaves.
We may take our leave of the Romans by reminding ourselves that the
Emperor Nero, after murdering his mother in 59 A.D. and his first wife
soon thereafter, officially and with all legal and religious ceremony
married one of his slave boys, whom he had castrated for the purpose,
and also posed himself as a timid and blushing bride when he was, with
equal solemnity, married to a lusty slave whom he had emancipated to
have as husband.
It is not quite certain whether these auspicious
nuptials were solemnized before or after he kicked his second wife to
death, but it is clear that Nero was as free of prejudices as
progressive educators are trying to make our children.
The imperial
animal was finally eliminated by the Army, but the really significant
thing is that his youthful zest, exhibited in these and a hundred other
exploits of equal charm, made him a symbol of “democracy,” and he was so
beloved by a large part of the populace that for decades after his
death the Empire was disturbed by imposters who, claiming to be Nero,
had no difficulty in attracting a large and enthusiastic following and
flourished until regular troops were sent to put them down. A Great
Society always knows its own.
Christianity
I cannot pretend to trace the history of homosexuality in the Western
world. Before the inevitable fall of the Roman Empire, Christianity,
which explicitly identifies homosexuality as an offense against God,
became the established religion, and when the worm-eaten fabric of the
Empire collapsed, its territory in Western Europe was occupied by fresh
and vigorous peoples, and since many of them were Germanic they brought
with them an instinctive repugnance toward perversion that re-enforced
the teachings of the Church.
As a generalization, therefore, we may say
that in the Western world, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the time
of the French Revolution, homosexuality was forbidden and punished by
very stringent laws, both ecclesiastical and civil. And those laws were
enforced, even against persons of high rank.
In England, for example,
Lord Audley, Earl of Castlehaven, was convicted of sodomy and executed
in 1631. And as late as 1810, at least, a commissioned officer in the
British Army and an enlisted man were executed for the same offense.
That may have been the last time the death penalty was enforced. In the
same year, the persons caught by the police in a raid on a homosexual
brothel in London were merely sentenced to the pillory, but that was not
exactly light punishment since an indignant populace saw to it that
they returned to prison looking more like heaps of garbage than human
beings.
Of course, during the fourteen centuries covered by our
generalization the laws and the social standards they represented were
frequently violated. That is merely what we should expect, since
violations could normally be detected only when the violators themselves
advertised their offenses. But there were many corrupting influences at
work. It would take pages to list them, but it should be noted that
some of the most important were anti-Christian movements disguised as
Christian heresies or as occult “science.”
The Bogomils,
As everyone knows, a common
English term for sodomists is
bugger, which is derived from the French
bougre, which in turn comes from a slurred pronunciation of
Bulgar.
The reference is to a sect of heretics, more properly called Bogomils,
who held Manichaean doctrines, a few of which, such as denial of the
divine birth of Christ and insistence on social and racial equality, are
now held by leaders of the National Council of Churches. The Bogomils,
who were notorious buggers, were transported from Asia Minor to Bulgaria
by the Byzantine Empire, and from their new home they sent streams of
zealous missionaries both eastward into what is now Russia and westward
into Europe, where, from the Tenth to the Fourteenth Centuries, they
planted various local heresies, notably the Patareni in northern Italy
and the Albigenses in southern France. One need not believe that all
members of the latter sects adopted the sexual practices of the
evangelists, but the Bogomil missionaries must have exerted a very
considerable influence.
Again, along the shifting boundaries of Europe
and especially during the Crusades Europeans came into contact with the
Semitic peoples among whom homosexuality is accepted as normal, and one
result was that the powerful order of Knights Templar, who held
strongholds and rich fiefs throughout Europe until they were suppressed,
were not only noted as homosexuals but evidently made sexual perversion
a part of their ritual. [10] Throughout the Middle Ages and even in the
Renaissance systems of magic, including necromancy and most of alchemy,
derived from the Kabbalah, were peddled throughout Europe, partly by
enthusiasts who were victims of their own (often drug-induced)
hallucinations, but principally, we may be sure, by “intellectuals” who
had found a convenient means of exploiting the credulity of wealthy
suckers. From such occultism it was an easy and natural progress to
witchcraft and Satanism, and, as two examples — the infamous Gilles de
Rais, Marechal de France in the Fifteenth Century, and the notorious
Aleister Crowley in the Twentieth [11] — will suffice to remind us, the
worship of evil has always included the practice of homosexuality as an
emphatic repudiation of the prejudices that prevent normal men from
joyously wallowing in every kind of filthy self-debasement and
disgusting crime.
There
were other influences, less spectacular but equally insidious.
No one
can deny that some perverts have a high degree of intellectual ability,
including literary talent — one could, for example, compile a very large
anthology of well-written poems by homosexuals from Straton of Sardis
(Second Century) to Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, and Paul Verlaine; and
many of our contemporaries attribute high literary merit to the novels
of Andre Gide, who is the foremost apologist for homosexuality in our
time, and to the morbid maunderings of Marcel Proust, who slightly
disguised his activities by giving his boyfriends feminine names.
I can
here mention only two men of letters of the Fifteenth Century in Italy,
where, perhaps because the population was so heterogeneous, the
perversion seems to have been especially common. Antonio Beccadelli,
better known as Panormita, in the collection of obscene poems entitled
Hermaphroditus,
describes paederasty in terms which suggest that it was, like addiction
to opium or hashish, a pleasurable habit that could not be broken — but
it is uncertain whether he was writing a description or propaganda.
More significant are the confessions of Pacificus Maximus in his
Hecatelegium:
as a child he was sent to a grammar school in which the headmaster, a
secret but enthusiastic paederast, insisted on freeing all his pupils
from their inhibitions so that he could have fun with them.
In the
Fifteenth Century, parents were evidently as negligent or as awed by
educational experts as they are today, and
I regret to report that the progressive headmaster was not hanged. In fact, he seems to have flourished. And there were many like him.
Perhaps the most important factor of all was one that the new science
of genetics has only partly explained: biological degeneration. Here is
an example. Louis XIV of France, although he brought on France such
evils as highly centralized government and military defeats, was
undoubtedly a man. He had, however, a brother, who was almost certainly
legitimate, Philippe, Duc d’Orleans, who always wore women’s
underclothing and was only with difficulty restrained from appearing at
court in skirts. This engaging creature was, as protocol required,
married to an English princess, but became furiously jealous of his
legal wife because he thought her attractive to men whom he wanted to
love him. So important a personage as the King’s brother naturally had
no lack of ambitious courtiers willing to use him as a mistress, and we
are not astonished to find him — or, to be more precise, it — engaged in
scabrous political intrigues and suspected of having instigated several
secret assassinations.
Louis disliked Philippe, but he was not enough
of a Roman to purge his own family, nor was he enough of a Christian to
feel effective concern at harm done to others. The royal pervert was
like an open sore on the body of France when that nation was dominant in
Europe. No one can estimate how much harm was done by the conspicuous
creature, not merely in spreading perversion, but in exciting every kind
of demoralization, including contempt for the whole society and even
the religion that permitted so despicable a being to hold rank next to
the very highest and to receive honor and flattery, however
hypocritical.
Enrique el Impotente, King
of Castile
We must always bear in mind the fact that homosexuality is commonly
associated with perversion of all the faculties and instincts normal to
Western men. One example of many is Enrique el Impotente, who was King
of Castile from 1454 to 1474. It is significant, I think, that this
pathological specimen, who admitted that he could not stand women and
had his queen impregnated by an obliging courtier, had an olfactory
sense such that he considered the odor of burning leather the most
delicious smell in the whole world, with the possible exception of the
aroma emanating from the skull of a long-dead horse. It is probably not a
coincidence that he had a tender heart for criminals, preventing the
execution of murderers and other malefactors whenever he learned of
their crimes in time to pardon them, and recruiting those who had
distinguished themselves by the number or the sadistic ferocity of their
murders into his own bodyguard, which was otherwise composed of
imported Moslems. Like the modern “Liberal,” however, Enrique had a
heart that was tender only for criminals and felt no compassion for
decent people. When Enrique “farmed out” the extremely lucrative
privilege of apportioning and collecting taxes (for a percentage) to a
wealthy usurer, Rabbi Josef of Segovia, and one of the latter’s
colleagues, he authorized those remarkable officials to put to death
without even a hearing
any citizen who was remiss in paying whatever they chose to demand as
taxes. Enrique was also, of course, a pacifist, although he was cunning
enough to reach a secret understanding with Spain’s enemies and then
declare a fake war as a pretext for extorting more taxes from his
suffering people. Enrique, who was also an expert at inflating currency
and debasing the coinage by adulterating the silver, had many other
progressive ideas. He undoubtedly knew what he was doing when he placed
his twelve-year-old half-brother, whom he later poisoned, under a tutor
who was a notorious pervert and who is said to have been successful in
that branch of education, although there is some doubt and the boy had
manhood enough to defend his sister, Isabella, a few years later when
Enrique tried to make her promiscuous at the age of fourteen. Whatever
hereditary taints account for Enrique, they evidently did not reach his
half-sister, who eventually succeeded him on the throne and through
whose courage and ability the Kingdom of Castile became the Kingdom of
Spain.
-------------------
The foregoing comments are not a history of perversion,
nor are they
intended to show (what it would be obviously impossible to prove) that all
homosexuals are inhuman monsters. But for at least twenty-two centuries
in the Western world, homosexuality has consistently been a factor in
repudiation of all morality and hence of civilization itself,
which is obviously impossible without a general and instinctively
accepted moral code. It is not a question of individuals who indulge in
private practices that we consider loathsome and that are, in Christian
terms, offenses against the Creator. What we must consider is a species
that derives joy from the corruption of our children to its own level
and seems driven by an urge to destroy us. As the author of the article
in
Human Events that I cited above concisely puts it,
the
members of the Homosexual International “constitute a worldwide
conspiracy against society.” And that conspiracy is in our time a
subsidiary or ally of the International Communist Conspiracy, not
because homosexuals are subject to blackmail, as charitable people are
inclined to suppose,
but because their instincts lead them to the same
frenzied hatred of Western civilization.
That — I repeat — is not to say that all homosexuals are sadists. Of
the literary men whom I mentioned above, Wilde seems to have had no
criminal tendencies; Verlaine, it is true, tried to kill his lover,
Rimbaud (who had participated in the Communist outbreak in Paris in
1870), but he probably had good reason; Gide eventually became
“disillusioned” with the Communists and even criticized his former pals;
and Proust was virtually a hermit.
It is entirely possible, even probable, that there are more than a
few secret homosexuals who have no desire or impulse to destroy mankind,
and we should all explicitly recognize that probability.
Furthermore,
it would be wrong to claim that the more violent homosexuals are all
Communists. One thinks, for example, of two wealthy and brilliant
undergraduates in the University of Chicago named Loeb and Leopold, who
are still remembered because in Chicago in the 1920’s they kidnapped and
killed a young boy of their own race and social circle just for the
perverted fun of killing him. One thinks also of their contemporary,
Fritz Haarman, another distinguished homosexual who attracted some
attention in Germany when it was discovered that for many years he had
been disposing of his boyfriends, as soon as he became tired of them, by
tearing their throats open with his teeth and then grinding them up for
sausage, which he sold in a delicatessen. There is no indication that
Loeb, Leopold, or Haarmann were affiliated with the Communist
Conspiracy, although they certainly had the right instincts for
leadership in the international revolution.
We must all face the highly unpleasant fact that homosexuality is
usually associated (either as cause or effect — it would be hard to say
which) with
sadism, [12] and that sadism in turn, when it does not find
an outlet in acts of brutal violence, inspires the passion for
“equality” and “social justice” that masquerades as “idealism” and is
accepted as such by unsuspecting persons who do not see that the only
purpose of the “idealists” is to incite the violence and brutality that
will give them a vicarious delight even if they have no opportunity to
participate in it personally. [13]
The very word
sadism, by
which we designate the lust to inflict pain and degradation on others,
is derived from the name of an infamous pervert, the
“Marquis” de Sade,
author of what are probably the vilest books ever written, who was
precisely what we should expect: a great apostle of the doctrine that
all men are born equal (“La nature nous a fait naitre tous egaux”), a
vociferous advocate of what his successors call “economic democracy,”
and a close associate and collaborator of Marat, Robespierre, and other
blood-thirsty leaders of the French Revolution. De Sade’s career is
merely typical: he was twice condemned to death for atrocious crimes of
the kind to which he has given his name, but the sentences,
unfortunately, were not carried out; he was in prison in 1790, when he
was released by fellow idealists to participate in the “struggle for
human rights,” and, in addition to orating about
egalite and fraternite,
he personally had lots of fun for thirteen years until Napoleon came to
power and sent him back to prison.
Also typical of the born agitator is
the undergraduate at the University of Chicago who in his diary
deplored his “inability to control society” and to “run the world.” He
determined to make reprisals for the social injustice of which he was
thus a victim, commenting “Since I have devoted more time to psychology,
it should be easy. . . .
I shall attack human nature to my
fullest extent.” [14] He could have had a brilliant career as an
“intellectual” undermining civilized society in the name of
“brotherhood” and “the underprivileged,” but the pervert was so
impatient that he committed three murders and was eventually caught.
Homosexuality is only one of several factors in the decline of the West, but it is an important one.
Homosexuality is only one of several factors in the decline of the West, but it is an important one. As is well known — at least since the publication of Anatoli Granovsky’s
I Was an N.K.V.D. Agent
(New York, Devin-Adair, 1962) —
the Communist Conspiracy maintains in
Russia two training schools for sexual athletes.
The graduates of one
college are heterosexual experts and specialize in the capture and
manipulation of promiscuous females who, through wealth or marriage,
hold positions of political power or influence in Western Europe or the
United States.
The graduates of the other school, which may be the more
important, are perverts trained to attract perverts.
The agents thus
trained are, of course, a part of the elaborate mechanism by which the
Bolsheviks now control and paralyze civilized nations.
But the
Conspiracy is thus exploiting a condition that it has helped create. It
is undoubtedly true that the international vermin have been working for
centuries, with the secrecy and patience of termites, to destroy Western
civilization by eating away all its beams and rafters — by debauching
and defiling every part of our culture from art and music to science and
philosophy; and they have worked above all to destroy morality, the
foundation on which all civilization must rest. That much is certain.
The only question is how much of our present plight is the result of the
termites’ work and thus reparable, if we still have the will and
strength to act in time, and
how much is the result of natural rot,
through biological deterioration or human unwillingness to bear for long
the burden of high civilization, and therefore inevitable. And that is a
question that I see no means of answering with precision and certainty.
[15]
Confronted, as we are, by cunning, insidious, and implacable enemies
in our midst, we dare not disregard the ever increasing prevalence of
homosexuality in our society. As R.G. Waldeck summarized it in
Human Events,
“the (homosexual) conspiracy has spread all over the globe; has
penetrated all classes; operates in armies and in prisons; has
infiltrated into the press, the movies, and the cabinets; and it all but
dominates the arts, literature, theater, music and TV.”
So long as the degenerates were furtive and discreet, the American public had no conception of their number and power.
To be sure, ever since Franklin Roosevelt led his great horde of
traitors and degenerates into our capital, everyone who knew anything
about the operations of Washington knew that perverts held important
posts, and after the Acting Secretary of State,
Sumner Welles,
was beaten by one of his Negro “husbands” in a fit of jealousy, people
began to suspect that there was more than wit to the Washingtonian humor
[16] that took it for granted that “our” State Department was dominated
by perverts. But even so, Americans, with their habitual optimism,
encouraged by the silence of the newspapers and magazines, liked to
believe that the infection was more or less confined to that one
department of government or, at least, was not very widespread.
F.D.Roosevelt
And, of
course, ever since the establishment of Roosevelt’s conception of the
Presidency as an office to be used to impose a totalitarian dictatorship
on the American boobs and to beat them into slavery to “world
government,” the great and illegal powers of that office have been used
to protect perverts.
In 1950, for example, an investigating committee
under the chairmanship of Senator Hoey (see Senate Document 241,
Eighty-first Congress) ascertained that
there were at least seven
thousand perverts in positions of importance in all agencies and
departments of the Federal government (including,
nota bene,
the Department of Justice), but the testimony was suppressed by an
Executive Order from the White House, in open and flagrant violation of
the Constitution, and the Senate of the United States, a once august
body, supinely submitted to that usurpation.
1951 - NEW ERA
The general public had little comprehension of such matters until the
perverts, with arrogant confidence that they — or, to be more precise,
their Bolshevik masters and protectors — already had the Western world
by the throat, began to advertise themselves and to claim openly their
“civil rights” as a “minority group” comparable to Jews and Negroes.
This concerted crawling out from the woodwork seems to have begun in
1951 with the establishment of the “World Federation for the Rights of
Man” and the publication in West (yes!) Germany of a magazine for
perverts,
Die Insil. (By this time, of course, every Western
country, including the United States, has a number of periodicals
published in its own language and specifically addressed to perverts.)
Even so, most Americans were astonished, or even shocked, when the
President of the Washington chapter of a league of “male” perverts, the
Mattachine Society, [17] under oath before a Congressional Committee,
testified that there were a quarter of a million homosexuals in
Washington, and that at least two hundred thousand and probably more
were employed in the Federal government.
There was, perhaps, some slight
additional shock at the discovery that the Mattachines’ head was
seconded by Professor M.H. Freedman of the Law School of George
Washington University. (Alas, poor George! He was not a “fellow of
infinite jest,” and I fear that
his gorge would rise, if he
knew that Freedmans were capering under his name.) Prof. Freedman, a
choice fruit from the hothouse of Harvard University, refused to state
under oath whether or not he was a Mattachine, but appeared on behalf of
the hoary old American Civil Liberties Union to argue that associated
perverts have a right to pose as a “charitable” organization and solicit
contributions from the public to disseminate propaganda for perversion.
It was that impudent solicitation in the District of Columbia that
brought the matter before the Congressional Committee of which the
Honorable John Dowdy of Texas was chairman, and so led to the published
hearings on House Resolution 5990 in August, 1963, and January, 1964.
Congressman Dowdy is a Democrat, but I need not add that the Democratic
Administration in Washington used every resource of the United States
Treasury to prevent his re-election in November, 1964.
The perverts became even bolder when,
on May 29, June 26, and July
31, 1965, they threw a line of pickets around the White House, the
Pentagon, and the Civil Service Commission to “protest” against
“discrimination.” Most of the pickets, including clergymen, [18] wore
trousers; a few wore skirts. There was no medical examination to
determine to what sex, if any, they belonged. Their banners claimed that
— despite the
discreaminashion of which they complained —
there were a quarter of a million of them ensconced in the Federal
government’s bureaucracy, another quarter of a million snugged down in
the Armed Services, and a total of 15,000,000 of them in the United
States, all, presumably, ready to vote for their heart’s desire. The
first figure is probably correct; the second probably counts former
members of the Armed Services, including the many direct commissions
directly ordered by Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt; and the third is
undoubtedly an exaggeration for purposes of political blackmail, since
the organized perverts, who have long maintained secret slush funds to
elect secret perverts to high political office, especially in
California, came partly into the open in 1965 with the establishment of a
“Society for Individual Rights” (more commonly designated as SIR —
fawncy that!) for the avowed purpose of establishing “a homosexual
voting bloc as a political factor to be reckoned with.”
“Fifteen million” is certainly an exaggeration, but there seems to be
no way of determining how gross an exaggeration it is. [19] If, for
example, we deducted ninety percent for enthusiasm and political
purposes, would the figure of 1,500,000 be too high or too low? Perhaps
the latter, but one can only guess. We certainly must not underestimate
the efficiency of the perverts in their “missionary activities.” [20]
Many of them carry on such activities compulsively, and many of them in
comparatively high positions take risks that no sane man would take —
and do so for no conceivable reason other than an urge to make converts.
When, for example, the rector of the wealthiest church in a large town
was finally arrested because, after repeated warnings, he persisted in
hanging around the gates of an Air Force training school to accost young
recruits and offer them homosexual fun, we cannot suppose that His
Reverence was just lonely. He belonged to a club or circle of fellow
perverts, and the only explanation is that he felt a call to spread a
gospel that he found much more attractive than the New Testament, a Book
which he was accustomed to mention on Sundays. When the managing editor
of a daily newspaper, long known as a leader in a little clique of his
kind, tried to drug and rape a young plain-clothes policeman, we can
only suppose that he felt an overwhelming urge to recruit for his cult,
although he, of all people, should have been aware of the risk he was
taking. Most incidents of this kind are “hushed up” by political and
other pressures so that they are seldom known outside the community in
which they occur and provide a subject for amused comment, but
occasionally, since “Liberal” censorship of our press is not yet
complete, some typical episodes become more widely known. For example,
the United Press in a dispatch from Philadelphia on October 21, 1965,
noted that the Professor of Sociology (and head of the department) in a
well-known college had overplayed his luck in his avocation of riding
street cars to pick up young boys and entice them to an apartment in
which, after plying them with alcohol, he could help them overcome their
inhibitions. Of course, the Big Brain could have found plenty of
partners — including juveniles — without the slightest risk of arrest,
had he been so minded.
In England, according to a Reuters dispatch from
London, April 30, 1965, a slight stir was occasioned when Baron
Moynihan, who had been chairman of Britain’s Liberal Party, was arrested
by the police while he, in the capacity of a “male” prostitute, was
accosting men on the streets of London and soliciting business at
bargain rates. [21] His Lordship, we may be sure, lacked neither money
(he had amassed a fortune as a stockbroker) nor safe opportunities. What
sent him into the streets was the same compulsion that led to the
several arrests of a far more powerful and influential individual,
Walter Jenkins, who was Lyndon Johnson’s closest assistant until Abe
Fortas, now Justice of the Supreme Court, failed in a strenuous attempt
to keep news of the arrest entirely out of the press. [22] So far as I
know, however, the really significant detail in that affair was noted
only by
American Opinion (July-August, 1965, p. 79), which commented:
The degenerate’s strange urge to practice perversion in
public . . . should not be overlooked in forming an estimate of the
creatures. Like Jenkins, many of the perverts in the highest levels of
our government have been arrested several times for such offenses. They
draw some of the largest salaries paid in this country, and no one can
argue that they cannot afford a dollar for a cab-ride home or three
dollars for a room in a cheap hotel, where, under the laws of the
District of Columbia, they would be immune to arrest. Instead, some
strange compulsion drives these creatures to practice their perversions
in public parks and in public buildings, such as the Y.M.C.A., where
they are subject to arrest when caught in the act.
Part of that compulsion, no doubt, is missionary zeal.
The assiduous “missionary activities” of the perverts would be much
less successful, if the way for them had not been prepared by concerted
propaganda designed to benumb the normal American’s abhorrence of
perverts and to prepare adolescents for degrading debauchery. In recent
years this propaganda has increasingly included an open apology for, and
laudation of, homosexuality, but the most effective form is still the
“panel discussion” or sham controversy carefully rigged so that the
audience or readers will be left with the impression that they must be
“open minded” and “tolerant.” The propagandists need not be perverts
themselves, and it is likely that many or most of them are not. It is a
basic axiom of subversives, formulated by Adam Weishaupt when he
organized the conspiracy of the Illuminati in 1776 and reaffirmed by his
successors, including Lenin, that the best way to destroy a nation is
to undermine its morality. And that, of course, is what the secret and
implacable enemies of our civilization have been doing for centuries.
The propaganda comes over every medium of communication. If you are
one of the few who read the testimony taken by the Senate Subcommittee
on Internal Security, you will not be astonished that the radio stations
operated by the Communist-infested Pacifica Foundation try to “educate”
the American public on the joys of Bolshevism, addiction to marijuana,
and homosexuality. [23] Given the power of homosexuals in the cinema and
television, as stated in the article in
Human Events from
which I quoted above, one may be sure that few opportunities for subtle
propaganda, including, no doubt, the devices that Vance Packard
described in
The Hidden Persuaders, are overlooked. In some
parts of the United States, at least, that hoary old bulwark of
subversion, the American Civil Liberties Union, sponsors public lectures
on the delights of perversion to “promote understanding.” The
mumbo-jumbo of our fashionable witch-doctors is accepted as “scientific”
by those who know nothing about scientific method.
For example, Dr.
Albert Ellis, formerly director of the New Jersey State Hospital and now
one of the brightest blossoms in the great pansy-bed called the State
Department, in his best-known book,
The American Sexual Tragedy,
opined that all men who are not homosexuals are “fetishistic” and
suffer from the delusion that women are more fun — and hence must be
treated as “victims of psychiatric illness.” It is quite possible that
there are people who believe Doc Ellis — he’s got a college degree,
hasn’t he?
More effective, however, are the many tomes of “sexology”
that are not so blatant and merely take it for granted that
homosexuality is a “problem” to be solved in terms of what is the most
fun, while they tacitly or explicitly ignore as irrelevant such old
fashioned considerations as right and wrong, good and evil.
By its cumulative effect over many years, this propaganda has
prepared the way for what is, so far as I know, the most shameless
attempt to annex the United States to the Sotadic Zone — a book that is
almost incredible. Ten years ago, I am sure, and probably even five
years ago, the most pessimistic observer of our rotting nation would
have refused to believe that such a work could have been published in
the United States, much less accorded glowing reviews and widely
circulated. It is the work of a college professor, who, as still
happens, is also a man of learning: that makes him the less excusable
and the more dangerous.
Using the pen-name of J.Z. Eglinton and the
insidious title,
Greek Love, he has written and published (New
York, Oliver Layton Press, 1964) a five-hundred-page panegyric of
paederasty, extolling its delights in perfervid and even eloquent terms,
condemning such pervert-cliques as the Mattachine Society as timorous
and reactionary, and boldly claiming that all men, being created equal,
have a
perfect right to seduce male children. Professor
“Eglinton” believes that boys between the ages of twelve and sixteen
provide the most fun, and he proves his point by recounting, in the
style of a romantic novelist, the wondrous fun thus had by university
professors, scout masters, graduate students, rabbis, and the like. It
would be supererogatory to argue with Professor Eglinton. If you are an
American and have children for whom you care, or if you are under
seventy and hope that the United States will last your time, it will be
obvious to you that his species and ours cannot long coexist in the same
territory.
The total effects of homosexuality on our society are really
incalculable. The power and activity of the filthy mass of perverts and
traitors in Washington is too well-known to require comment here, but
there are other effects of which we know so little quantitatively that
we can do no more than speculate about their social importance.
Consider, for example, the distinguished clergyman (and fervent apostle
of “racial equality”) whose tastes are described by the experienced
police-investigator, Hubert J. Badeaux, in his authoritative book,
The Underworld of Sex (New Orleans, privately printed and distributed only to responsible subscribers to the
Civic Review,
1959). This Shepherd of Souls is a pervert and has, what is extremely
common among his species, a passionate predilection for Negro
“husbands.” He also maintains, as do many perverts, a wife as protective
covering. [24] He is thus able to enjoy not only the services of his
black “lover,” but also the added titillation of watching and
participating, while his legal wife serves as a whore for his Congoid
“husband.” The reverend animal whose delectations are described by Mr.
Badeaux is by no means unique.
Some observers think it probable that
similar amusements account for otherwise inexplicable enthusiasm for the
“Civil Rights” movement in clerical circles, and this view is to some
extent supported by the behavior of the vermin that the Communist
Conspiracy sent into Selma, Alabama, last year. [25] It must be
emphasized, however, that all such explanations, given the paucity of
specific and authenticated data available, can be no more than
speculative.
I have commented at some length on homosexuality because that is
directly relevant to Mr. Seelig’s report of what he and his beloved
children have suffered at the hands of organized degenerates and the
vast criminal apparatus of which they are an important part. I do not
mean to give the subject undue prominence and I hope that the reader
will remember that we are dealing with only one of the components of a
complex of subversion, the various parts of which fit into one another
as do the pieces of a Chinese puzzle.
There are very significant sexual perversions that are not, strictly
speaking, homosexual, but, in contemporary society, at least, combine
with it to form part of a larger unit.
For example, although most of us
do not know it, we American taxpayers maintain a Whore Corps to
entertain Communists and Cannibals whenever they come to Washington to
haul another load of our money out of our Treasury. That, of course, is
merely the kind of service to “underdeveloped nations” that everyone
takes for granted, but what is significant is that there are real
difficulties in maintaining
morale in the Whore Corps.
Some of
the distinguished internationalists who come to promote “world law” by
taking our gold do prefer women, but only when they have been suitably
prepared with a buggy-whip so that their bodies are covered with the
blood that oozes or gushes from welts and wounds thus inflicted. Now
although it is doubtless deplorable from a One-Worlder’s point of view,
it is, I think, understandable that even females who have been
thoroughly emancipated from “bourgeois prejudices” and imbued with a
desire for “international understanding” quail when the lash bites into
their flesh. In fact, it was in consequence of such weakness that many
Americans received their first notice of that form of recreation.
A
woman, sent by “our” State Department to entertain one of our parasites
in the suite we had provided for him, lost her nerve when the whip was
produced as soon as she stripped for the occasion; she ran nude through
the corridors of the hotel, thus attracting some attention, although the
establishment was one frequented by the
creme de la creme of our governing ochlocracy. The incident was therefore reported in the press.
The press, however, has not thus far seen fit to comment on the very
expensive establishments in Washington and Florida in which the more
masculine members of our elite begin by selecting from a rack the
jewel-handled whip that will make the female of their choice sexually
attractive. Now the great-hearted humanitarians who share the “Marquis”
de Sade’s passion for “human equality” and related matters are not, in
that aspect of their activity, homosexuals, but Americans who have not
yet attained “mental health” will regard them as perverts.
Perversion, in turn, is but one phase of the erotic mania that has
been cunningly induced in our country, largely through the public
schools, and is now being whetted to exasperation by the flood of
pornography which, under the patronage of Earl Warren and his acolytes,
is now flooding our newsstands for the instruction of those children and
adolescents who do not have it forcibly administered to them in their
classrooms. [26] Most of this sewage is not specifically homosexual; it
is simply Sotadic, and could have as its motto the remark attributed to a
notorious actress of the past generation:
“Male sex? Female sex? What
do I care, so long as it is sex?”
In this connection, of course, one
thinks of the ferret-faced Ralph Ginzberg, who edited the lush
pornographic periodical called
Eros and now edits a possibly more pernicious thing called
Fact
while he, having been sentenced to seven years in prison for his lewd
publications, is out on bond and waiting for Comrade Earl to think up a
pretext for turning him loose. It must be admitted that Ginzberg’s
excretions, both in themselves and because they were somewhat expensive,
were probably not so poisonous as the incredibly filthy novel,
The Awakening of Cindy, which was spread over the newsstands as a “paper-back” for the instruction of every schoolchild who had seventy-five cents.
According to Newsweek
(April 12, 1965), the author of that printed orgy of homosexuality and
promiscuity was, by chance, discovered to be the Reverend Dr. Arthur
Edwin Shelton, pastor of the Wesley Memorial Methodist Church of
Norfolk, Virginia. Readers of that report must have wondered whether the
Man of God was merely trying to spread degeneracy for a fast buck or
found some deeper satisfaction in his labors for his Lord.
It would require a volume, however, to treat pornography and erotic
mania in our time, and that, in turn, would be merely one phase of the
universal sabotage of our culture and our nation by our enemies. To
discuss that, we should have to try to trace the dark history of the
Communist Conspiracy.
Whether Americans have, by blind optimism and gross negligence,
permitted that crafty and subtle sabotage to go too far for the nation
to be preserved is a question both difficult and painful.
It will be
answered by the events of the next two or three years, at most. For the
purposes of this commentary, however, let us assume that the completion
of the Bolshevik capture of our country is averted by divine
intervention or an almost equally miraculous arousal of our long dormant
instinct for self-preservation.
On that assumption, what shall we be able to do about the epidemic of
homosexuality? It seems to me that four conclusions emerge from the
foregoing discussion, viz.:
- We cannot prevent by legislation the practice of homosexuality. Laws
are obviously ineffectual when violations of them can be discovered
only by rare accidents or in very unusual circumstances.
- By simply enforcing the penalties now provided by law in most
states, we can inhibit and hold to a minimum the perverts’ compulsive
“missionary activities.” Furthermore, if existing laws were enforced,
the control of our Federal government and deep penetration of many state
governments by the combined Homosexual International and International
Communist Conspiracy could be completely broken. While it would probably
be impossible completely to eliminate secret perverts, they could be
rendered powerless.
- We can stop the present use of the public schools as a vast machine
of demoralization designed to create the population of fellahin,
brutalized and stultified beings that live without hope and without
self-respect, needed as livestock in the Socialist State of which our
“Liberals” dream — and which they have almost created.
- All our efforts will be futile, unless we succeed in doing what no
nation before us has ever done — succeed in reversing the process of
demoralization and decay and in recreating a national morality and
morale — standards of personal conduct and self-discipline that will be
accepted without debate by all Americans, except, of course, the
underworld of human refuse that seems biologically inevitable, but which
healthy societies know how to quarantine and render socially and
politically powerless. And we must accept these standards of conduct and
self-discipline with enthusiasm and pride, recognizing them as part of
the superiority that is evinced by our physical power.
Is it possible that we, men of the West, members of the only race
that has had the intelligence and discipline to master many of the
powers of nature, are too stupid to preserve our own civilization?
Is it
not fantastic that we, who alone can create such intricate mechanisms
as electronic computers and automatic factories, should so demean
ourselves as to grovel among savages in the filthy hole called the
“United Nations”?
That we, who have mastered the atom and hold in our
hands the lightnings of nuclear power, should cower before the brutish
hordes of Genghis Khan — cower in the insane act of handing
our
weapons to our eternal enemies?
That we, who alone of all races can
look far into the infinite universe and can now measure with precision
the vast quasi-stars (quasars) that lie at the unimaginable distance of
six billion light-years, should enslave ourselves to creatures whose
rudimentary minds can never truly comprehend the simple principles that
we learn in childhood?
Those are the questions that every man must answer for himself now.
It may be, of course, that Poland’s greatest poet, Zygmunt Krasinski,
who lived on the frontiers of Europe more than a century ago, was
prescient and prophetic when he composed an epitaph for the Christian
West:
To the errors accumulated by their forefathers they added
yet others which their forefathers knew not: hesitation and timidity.
And so it came to pass that they vanished from the face of the earth,
and ever since their vanishing there has been a great silence.
—Revilo P. Oliver, January, 1966, Urbana, Illinois
===================
